Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

Diana-2, VH-VHZ, English
http://www.segelflug.de/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=1,5&Board=Flugzeuge&Number=68917&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=0&vc=1#Post68917

Many good things have been written and read about Diana-2.... but there is a
Diana-2 with serial number 3 and the call-sign VH-VHZ
http://www.sportaviation.com.au/C01_S%20copy.jpg
which unfortunately stranded in Australia.

The manufacturer is proud that they delivered a plane to the multiple world
record pilot.
http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?id=1320&from=gliding
http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=1
http://www.beres.com.pl/polish/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=1

But unfortunately the plane which arrived in Tocumwal (Australia) limped and
never raced. It even did not receive the Australian airworthiness.
http://www.glidingmagazine.com/NewsArticle.asp?id=1605

This plane really must have been born sick. Even the wheel broke off the
tail dolly. But at least that was repairable.
Many emails were sent to the manufacturer from December 2006 on to solve the
various problems, but the factory stayed silent: no sign of cooperation or
customer care.

The same pilot had flown several world records with Diana-1. I wished I
could fly as good.
VH-VHZ only did test flights in Tocumwal - no cross country flights - no
records - frustration only for everybody involved.

After his flight with Diana-2 World Champion Ingo Renner commented: The
potential of this glider cannot be achieved, due to its bad handling
problems at the moment.

Still the manufacturer seems to be uncooperative and a negative comment in
the online guestbook of the manufacturer about the event was deleted a day
later.

It is unsure if this craw ever will morph into an eagle.
Obviously the manufacturer tries to cover up the whole story about the
existence of a Diana-2 with malicious flight characteristics.

Six month have now passed without any help for the customer to solve the
problems. That's why the grace period of public silence has run out.

Chris

[[email protected]]

On Jul 25, 9:29 pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> Diana-2, VH-VHZ, Englishhttp://www.segelflug.de/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=1,5&Bo...
>
> Many good things have been written and read about Diana-2.... but there is a
> Diana-2 with serial number 3 and the call-sign VH-VHZhttp://www.sportaviation.com.au/C01_S%20copy.jpg
> which unfortunately stranded in Australia.
>
> The manufacturer is proud that they delivered a plane to the multiple world
> record pilot.http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?id=1320&from=glidinghttp://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&I...http://www.beres.com.pl/polish/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
>
> But unfortunately the plane which arrived in Tocumwal (Australia) limped and
> never raced. It even did not receive the Australian airworthiness.http://www.glidingmagazine.com/NewsArticle.asp?id=1605
>
> This plane really must have been born sick. Even the wheel broke off the
> tail dolly. But at least that was repairable.
> Many emails were sent to the manufacturer from December 2006 on to solve the
> various problems, but the factory stayed silent: no sign of cooperation or
> customer care.
>
> The same pilot had flown several world records with Diana-1. I wished I
> could fly as good.
> VH-VHZ only did test flights in Tocumwal - no cross country flights - no
> records - frustration only for everybody involved.
>
> After his flight with Diana-2 World Champion Ingo Renner commented: The
> potential of this glider cannot be achieved, due to its bad handling
> problems at the moment.
>
> Still the manufacturer seems to be uncooperative and a negative comment in
> the online guestbook of the manufacturer about the event was deleted a day
> later.
>
> It is unsure if this craw ever will morph into an eagle.
> Obviously the manufacturer tries to cover up the whole story about the
> existence of a Diana-2 with malicious flight characteristics.
>
> Six month have now passed without any help for the customer to solve the
> problems. That's why the grace period of public silence has run out.
>
> Chris



Chris, what you say is mean spirited, one sided, overblown and
sickening.
Who is your cover up sponsor? Segelflugzugenwundermachine accountant ?

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Chris, what you say is mean spirited, one sided, overblown and sickening.
> Who is your cover up sponsor? Segelflugzugenwundermachine accountant ?

many Australians saw it happen
if you can't accept facts
then believe in god
and leave space
for reality
Chris

[Bob Kuykendall]

arlier, wrote:

> Chris, what you say is mean spirited, one sided, overblown and
> sickening.
> Who is your cover up sponsor? Segelflugzugenwundermachine
> accountant ?

Reading all available accounts (not there are that many), I'm inclined
to believe that there is more than just a grain of truth to Mr.
Hostettler's accounting of the situation.

Developing a front-running competition sailplane of 15m span is an
incredibly difficult task. I find it very easy to believe that an
early production or pre-production unit would be behind schedule, over
budget, poorly trimmed, and in general not completely sorted-out to
the promised degree. I find it especially easy to believe that such
would be the product of a company with limited (that is, not Schempp-
Hirth or Schleicher class) development and production resources.

The important thing to understand is that sailplanes are specialty
products, not commodities. The are all hand-made. But some sailplanes
are more special than others. The Diana and Diana 2 sailplanes are
based on some very innovative design features, developed solely to
improve performance. These are lightweight, high-aspect-ratio (low
wing area) ships that push the envelope of what you can do and what
you can get away with. Doing that is expensive and risky - the kind of
venture shunned by the more conservative established firms and
embraced by the bold and the foolhardy. The real trick with getting
involved in such risky business is finding the measure of the boldness
and foolhardiness in yourself and in your partners.

Here's the key question in my mind: How is Mr. Hostettler's Internet
activity affecting the situation at hand? Is it helping or hurting Ms.
Zejdova's probability of achieving satisfaction from Design Office
Bogumil Beres? On the one hand, you could say that it is raising
awareness of unsavory business practices and prodding the company to
action. On the other hand, you can say that it is supressing demand
for Diana sailplanes, placing the manufacturer in such financial
straits as to make it unlikely that they could ever meet Ms. Zejdova's
legitimate demands. The answer to that question determines what kind
of friend Mr. Hostettler is to Ms. Zejdova.

Thanks, Bob K.

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

Wise words Bob - thanks.

Hana Zeidova is a good friend of mine.
She often flew my ASW-27 in Tocumwal and even if pushing the
glider to it's limits, she never made a scratch. Hana has a very good
risk management and she is a very good pilot. She is as well a good
professional photographer.

The manufacturer can solve the problem easily and he had already
six month to do so. Instead of blaming the pilot of having faked the
sent photographs, which were take to document all the problems
the factory could agree in fixing the problems in the factory and
agree to pay for the transports. I saw the problems personally and
the photos are not faked!! it would go as well against Hana's work
ethics and I understand her to be upset about these allegations.

The condition of the glider was so problematic, that only the owner
Hana and World Champion Ingo Renner got the permission to fly
it. Everybody knows that for example CG position is a very important
issue. Whenever I got a plane from the factory, I sat myself fully
equipped into the glider and we optimized CG position. I cannot
understand why this was not proposed.

It is understandable that harsh words might have been exchanged
about this issue. But I understand than the pilot of the plane is very
upset about what happened last year. The problem started because
the manufacturer refused to communicate and to cooperate. What
is so difficult to answer an email? to give some tips? to send some
needed technical data and information? I am sure both sides will
exchange apologies after a healthy business relationship has been
reestablished. But the first step has to be done by the Diana
factory.

Diana can get better publicity, as soon as the manufacturer says:
Sorry we messed it up, but we will now help to find out what
caused the problems and help to make this Diana-2 perfect for
your plans to fly further world records. Then it can be said that all
existing Diana's fly good. An apology to Hana's sponsor could
smoothen the second problem and hopefully get it's support back.
Nobody talks about lawyers when cooperation exists. Lawyers
are just bloody expensive and the money can be better for better
purposes.

I do not see how this should be so difficult.

I am happy also to report the positive issues about Hana's Diana
in future: That's nothing but fair. It only has to happen.

Chris
__________________________________________________ _

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kuykendall" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)


> Reading all available accounts (not there are that many), I'm inclined
> to believe that there is more than just a grain of truth to Mr.
> Hostettler's accounting of the situation.
>
> Developing a front-running competition sailplane of 15m span is an
> incredibly difficult task. I find it very easy to believe that an
> early production or pre-production unit would be behind schedule, over
> budget, poorly trimmed, and in general not completely sorted-out to
> the promised degree. I find it especially easy to believe that such
> would be the product of a company with limited (that is, not Schempp-
> Hirth or Schleicher class) development and production resources.
>
> The important thing to understand is that sailplanes are specialty
> products, not commodities. The are all hand-made. But some sailplanes
> are more special than others. The Diana and Diana 2 sailplanes are
> based on some very innovative design features, developed solely to
> improve performance. These are lightweight, high-aspect-ratio (low
> wing area) ships that push the envelope of what you can do and what
> you can get away with. Doing that is expensive and risky - the kind of
> venture shunned by the more conservative established firms and
> embraced by the bold and the foolhardy. The real trick with getting
> involved in such risky business is finding the measure of the boldness
> and foolhardiness in yourself and in your partners.
>
> Here's the key question in my mind: How is Mr. Hostettler's Internet
> activity affecting the situation at hand? Is it helping or hurting Ms.
> Zejdova's probability of achieving satisfaction from Design Office
> Bogumil Beres? On the one hand, you could say that it is raising
> awareness of unsavory business practices and prodding the company to
> action. On the other hand, you can say that it is supressing demand
> for Diana sailplanes, placing the manufacturer in such financial
> straits as to make it unlikely that they could ever meet Ms. Zejdova's
> legitimate demands. The answer to that question determines what kind
> of friend Mr. Hostettler is to Ms. Zejdova.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

[W[_2_]]

WTF is your obsession with Diana????

"BlueCumulus" > wrote in message
...
> Diana-2, VH-VHZ, English
> http://www.segelflug.de/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=1,5&Board=Flugzeuge&Number=68917&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=0&vc=1#Post68917
>
> Many good things have been written and read about Diana-2.... but there is
> a
> Diana-2 with serial number 3 and the call-sign VH-VHZ
> http://www.sportaviation.com.au/C01_S%20copy.jpg
> which unfortunately stranded in Australia.
>
> The manufacturer is proud that they delivered a plane to the multiple
> world
> record pilot.
> http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?id=1320&from=gliding
> http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=1
> http://www.beres.com.pl/polish/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=1
>
> But unfortunately the plane which arrived in Tocumwal (Australia) limped
> and
> never raced. It even did not receive the Australian airworthiness.
> http://www.glidingmagazine.com/NewsArticle.asp?id=1605
>
> This plane really must have been born sick. Even the wheel broke off the
> tail dolly. But at least that was repairable.
> Many emails were sent to the manufacturer from December 2006 on to solve
> the
> various problems, but the factory stayed silent: no sign of cooperation or
> customer care.
>
> The same pilot had flown several world records with Diana-1. I wished I
> could fly as good.
> VH-VHZ only did test flights in Tocumwal - no cross country flights - no
> records - frustration only for everybody involved.
>
> After his flight with Diana-2 World Champion Ingo Renner commented: The
> potential of this glider cannot be achieved, due to its bad handling
> problems at the moment.
>
> Still the manufacturer seems to be uncooperative and a negative comment in
> the online guestbook of the manufacturer about the event was deleted a day
> later.
>
> It is unsure if this craw ever will morph into an eagle.
> Obviously the manufacturer tries to cover up the whole story about the
> existence of a Diana-2 with malicious flight characteristics.
>
> Six month have now passed without any help for the customer to solve the
> problems. That's why the grace period of public silence has run out.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

[ventus2]

If Hana wants a good aircraft, I can sell her a Ventus 2cx and she can set
records in that.
:-)

Chris

[BB[_2_]]

U¿ytkownik "BlueCumulus" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Wise words Bob - thanks.
>
> Hana Zeidova is a good friend of mine.
> She often flew my ASW-27 in Tocumwal and even if pushing the
> glider to it's limits, she never made a scratch. Hana has a very good
> risk management and she is a very good pilot. She is as well a good
> professional photographer.
>
> The manufacturer can solve the problem easily and he had already
> six month to do so. Instead of blaming the pilot of having faked the
> sent photographs, which were take to document all the problems
> the factory could agree in fixing the problems in the factory and
> agree to pay for the transports. I saw the problems personally and
> the photos are not faked!! it would go as well against Hana's work
> ethics and I understand her to be upset about these allegations.
>
> The condition of the glider was so problematic, that only the owner
> Hana and World Champion Ingo Renner got the permission to fly
> it. Everybody knows that for example CG position is a very important
> issue. Whenever I got a plane from the factory, I sat myself fully
> equipped into the glider and we optimized CG position. I cannot
> understand why this was not proposed.
>
> It is understandable that harsh words might have been exchanged
> about this issue. But I understand than the pilot of the plane is very
> upset about what happened last year. The problem started because
> the manufacturer refused to communicate and to cooperate. What
> is so difficult to answer an email? to give some tips? to send some
> needed technical data and information? I am sure both sides will
> exchange apologies after a healthy business relationship has been
> reestablished. But the first step has to be done by the Diana
> factory.
>
> Diana can get better publicity, as soon as the manufacturer says:
> Sorry we messed it up, but we will now help to find out what
> caused the problems and help to make this Diana-2 perfect for
> your plans to fly further world records. Then it can be said that all
> existing Diana's fly good. An apology to Hana's sponsor could
> smoothen the second problem and hopefully get it's support back.
> Nobody talks about lawyers when cooperation exists. Lawyers
> are just bloody expensive and the money can be better for better
> purposes.
>
> I do not see how this should be so difficult.
>
> I am happy also to report the positive issues about Hana's Diana
> in future: That's nothing but fair. It only has to happen.
>
> Chris
> __________________________________________________ _
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Kuykendall" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Diana-2 VH-VHZ, stranded in Australia (pic links only)
>
>
> > Reading all available accounts (not there are that many), I'm inclined
> > to believe that there is more than just a grain of truth to Mr.
> > Hostettler's accounting of the situation.
> >
> > Developing a front-running competition sailplane of 15m span is an
> > incredibly difficult task. I find it very easy to believe that an
> > early production or pre-production unit would be behind schedule, over
> > budget, poorly trimmed, and in general not completely sorted-out to
> > the promised degree. I find it especially easy to believe that such
> > would be the product of a company with limited (that is, not Schempp-
> > Hirth or Schleicher class) development and production resources.
> >
> > The important thing to understand is that sailplanes are specialty
> > products, not commodities. The are all hand-made. But some sailplanes
> > are more special than others. The Diana and Diana 2 sailplanes are
> > based on some very innovative design features, developed solely to
> > improve performance. These are lightweight, high-aspect-ratio (low
> > wing area) ships that push the envelope of what you can do and what
> > you can get away with. Doing that is expensive and risky - the kind of
> > venture shunned by the more conservative established firms and
> > embraced by the bold and the foolhardy. The real trick with getting
> > involved in such risky business is finding the measure of the boldness
> > and foolhardiness in yourself and in your partners.
> >
> > Here's the key question in my mind: How is Mr. Hostettler's Internet
> > activity affecting the situation at hand? Is it helping or hurting Ms.
> > Zejdova's probability of achieving satisfaction from Design Office
> > Bogumil Beres? On the one hand, you could say that it is raising
> > awareness of unsavory business practices and prodding the company to
> > action. On the other hand, you can say that it is supressing demand
> > for Diana sailplanes, placing the manufacturer in such financial
> > straits as to make it unlikely that they could ever meet Ms. Zejdova's
> > legitimate demands. The answer to that question determines what kind
> > of friend Mr. Hostettler is to Ms. Zejdova.
> >
> > Thanks, Bob K.
> >
>
>

Hello,

However I am regular reader of group discussion, I take part to these rather
rarely. Called to the black-board with comment on my "rude and negative
manners in relation with customer" I feel obliged to offer some
explanations. Please arm yourselves with patience, this will not be a short
info.

My judgement based on aggressive mode of opinions presented here, as well as
precise details contained therein indicates the parson under "BluCumulus"
nick is Hana Zejdova or her close familiar. I do not understand why she does
not use her own name (but it is not my problem), any way in such case I
would respond to her, like I did to all former e-mail messages.

To explain the situation, I can say what follows:

1. The SZD-56-2 DIANA-2 model sailplane has successfully passed
complete flight test program, in accordance with JAR-22 requirements, and I
am in a final stage of process to gain the Type Certificate

2. "DIANA-2" is a single sailplane in its class, breaking the monopoly
of German sailplanes, while the sportive results achieved already on the
first built plane of this model confirm its quality beyond any doubts

3. I have at my disposal numerous press publications and opinions from
wide group of pilots (with various flying experience) who flown DIANA-2, and
confirmed afterwards the correct flying characteristics of this model

4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another. Zejda
family visited Bielsko many times and could personally inspect the process
of construction, to verify if everything is done in exact and repeatable
manner. Announcing now that the S/N 003 is different from other - they lie.
There is no chance for this from technical point of view.

5. After completion of the sailplane construction, this one for Zejdova
as it was a case with all other, has been subjected to acceptance inspection
of Polish CAA engineer and the test pilot (with I-st class rating) has
accomplished the factory test flight. Both verifications gave positive
result, which is confirmed also in the sailplane documents.

6. From the hitherto correspondence I know, in Australia an
unauthorised by my company adjustment to sailplane control systems have been
undertaken, which results in loss of warranty. DIANA is a sailplane with
unique design solutions, different from these popular on many other models.
Adjustment without previous introduction to these, even undertaken by an
experienced serviceman can result in improper operation of control systems.
Specially sensitive to adjustment is air-brake control system.

7. Striking is fact that all sailplanes both build before and after S/N
003 have good opinion among their owners/operators and only Zejdova has
reservations announced worldwide. I will not enclose here the links to
websites or magazines confirming high performance and very good piloting
characteristics. There is really large number of pilots who flown this
sailplane, with no negative opinions from whole this group.

8. Further: the sailplane has been sold to Czech Republic

9. Zejdova is not the owner, she was operator of this plane over
certain period of time/

10. Neither Zejdova nor other persons flying S/N 003 have no competency to
judge the piloting characteristics of the sailplane, to my opinion this is
within the competency of suitably trained & experienced test pilot

11. Owner of the concerned sailplane is a person financing Zejdova flying,
not from the aviation branch and I guess he is not conscious of the
situation aroused. The correspondence sent to him remains unanswered, while
he is a single partner for agreement on procedure to bring the sailplane to
the "factory" condition

12. In correspondence with Zejdova, I declared readiness to bring the
sailplane to the "factory" condition, free of charge (regardless from
warranty loss), provided the plane will be delivered to my company, or to
Czech Republic at minimum

13. Some time ago I undertook also an attempt to solve the problem in
direct discussion, inviting Hana with her father to Bielsko. Unfortunately,
the ribald row was all they were ready to offer - without chance for any
agreement. Artless term but these who had contact with these persons might
know what I am writing about.



To sum up, in my opinion the problem is not in technical condition of the
sailplane, at expedition from my company, but the later adjustment made
without my consent and also without necessary knowledge on the sailplane.

I estimate, the main problem is somewhere in the non-technical
circumstances.

I am pretty sure, the high performance and production quality of this
sailplane say for itself.



Bogumil Beres

[W[_2_]]

and I can sell her 2-33A

"ventus2" > wrote in message
...
> If Hana wants a good aircraft, I can sell her a Ventus 2cx and she can set
> records in that.
> :-)
>
> Chris
>
>

[bagmaker]

(snip)


10. Neither Zejdova nor other persons flying S/N 003 have no competency to
judge the piloting characteristics of the sailplane, to my opinion this is
within the competency of suitably trained & experienced test pilot
(snip)

As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency. Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?

There is obviosly a requirement here for some mediation.

Manufacturers in the world today (I am one, different products) not only need to do the right thing by their customers, they need to be SEEN to do the right thing.

Trading in the small world of competition gliders, to a customer base so versed in communication with the internet you must, as a supplier, meet this obligation to succeed.
Simply making a good product will not be enough.

Take a look at how damaged DG 's reputation got after the 300 spar incident, its a hard and maybe unfair life! But its what we have in gliding world, deal with it.

And deal with it better than you have!

Silence is absolutely the wrong way to go about mediation or any customer relations. Its a small world, all your potential customers are looking now, make something positive of it all.


just my 2c

bagger

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

First I like to say, that Hana Zejdova is not writing under the BlueCumulus
name.

Second - if this statement below from Bogumil Beres is true
4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another.

I wonder why not both sailplanes, the SP-3697 and the VH-VHZ look the same?

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092428314165188562

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092426948365588402

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2

Isn't it strange, how both planes should come out of the same negative
mould?

It seems to be a cheap excuse to cancel the warranty.
The factory could have answered email requests for help and not forcing the
maintenance shop in Australia to try to fix problems on their own.

It seems that Diana pilots are only allowed to make positive statements
about the planes flight handling, because they are all incompetent with
exception of the official test pilot.

Chris

_______________________

"BB" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> However I am regular reader of group discussion, I take part to these
> rather
> rarely. Called to the black-board with comment on my "rude and negative
> manners in relation with customer" I feel obliged to offer some
> explanations. Please arm yourselves with patience, this will not be a
> short
> info.
>
> My judgement based on aggressive mode of opinions presented here, as well
> as
> precise details contained therein indicates the parson under "BluCumulus"
> nick is Hana Zejdova or her close familiar. I do not understand why she
> does
> not use her own name (but it is not my problem), any way in such case I
> would respond to her, like I did to all former e-mail messages.
>
> To explain the situation, I can say what follows:
>
> 1. The SZD-56-2 DIANA-2 model sailplane has successfully passed
> complete flight test program, in accordance with JAR-22 requirements, and
> I
> am in a final stage of process to gain the Type Certificate
>
> 2. "DIANA-2" is a single sailplane in its class, breaking the
> monopoly
> of German sailplanes, while the sportive results achieved already on the
> first built plane of this model confirm its quality beyond any doubts
>
> 3. I have at my disposal numerous press publications and opinions
> from
> wide group of pilots (with various flying experience) who flown DIANA-2,
> and
> confirmed afterwards the correct flying characteristics of this model
>
> 4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
> jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
> to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another.
> Zejda
> family visited Bielsko many times and could personally inspect the process
> of construction, to verify if everything is done in exact and repeatable
> manner. Announcing now that the S/N 003 is different from other - they
> lie.
> There is no chance for this from technical point of view.
>
> 5. After completion of the sailplane construction, this one for
> Zejdova
> as it was a case with all other, has been subjected to acceptance
> inspection
> of Polish CAA engineer and the test pilot (with I-st class rating) has
> accomplished the factory test flight. Both verifications gave positive
> result, which is confirmed also in the sailplane documents.
>
> 6. From the hitherto correspondence I know, in Australia an
> unauthorised by my company adjustment to sailplane control systems have
> been
> undertaken, which results in loss of warranty. DIANA is a sailplane with
> unique design solutions, different from these popular on many other
> models.
> Adjustment without previous introduction to these, even undertaken by an
> experienced serviceman can result in improper operation of control
> systems.
> Specially sensitive to adjustment is air-brake control system.
>
> 7. Striking is fact that all sailplanes both build before and after
> S/N
> 003 have good opinion among their owners/operators and only Zejdova has
> reservations announced worldwide. I will not enclose here the links to
> websites or magazines confirming high performance and very good piloting
> characteristics. There is really large number of pilots who flown this
> sailplane, with no negative opinions from whole this group.
>
> 8. Further: the sailplane has been sold to Czech Republic
>
> 9. Zejdova is not the owner, she was operator of this plane over
> certain period of time/
>
> 10. Neither Zejdova nor other persons flying S/N 003 have no competency
> to
> judge the piloting characteristics of the sailplane, to my opinion this is
> within the competency of suitably trained & experienced test pilot
>
> 11. Owner of the concerned sailplane is a person financing Zejdova
> flying,
> not from the aviation branch and I guess he is not conscious of the
> situation aroused. The correspondence sent to him remains unanswered,
> while
> he is a single partner for agreement on procedure to bring the sailplane
> to
> the "factory" condition
>
> 12. In correspondence with Zejdova, I declared readiness to bring the
> sailplane to the "factory" condition, free of charge (regardless from
> warranty loss), provided the plane will be delivered to my company, or to
> Czech Republic at minimum
>
> 13. Some time ago I undertook also an attempt to solve the problem in
> direct discussion, inviting Hana with her father to Bielsko.
> Unfortunately,
> the ribald row was all they were ready to offer - without chance for any
> agreement. Artless term but these who had contact with these persons might
> know what I am writing about.
>
> To sum up, in my opinion the problem is not in technical condition of the
> sailplane, at expedition from my company, but the later adjustment made
> without my consent and also without necessary knowledge on the sailplane.
>
> I estimate, the main problem is somewhere in the non-technical
> circumstances.
>
> I am pretty sure, the high performance and production quality of this
> sailplane say for itself.
>
> Bogumil Beres

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

I have nothing against Diana-2

But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and flying
like serial number 2.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092428314165188562
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092426948365588402
while Boguminl Beres says
that they have to be the same
fly the same and look the same
because they come out of the same mould.
Chris


"W" > wrote in message
...
> WTF is your obsession with Diana????

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

BlueCumulus wrote:
> I have nothing against Diana-2
>
> But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and flying
> like serial number 2.
> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092428314165188562
> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092426948365588402
> while Boguminl Beres says
> that they have to be the same
> fly the same and look the same
> because they come out of the same mould.

Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
that the best evidence you have of changes?

[Airjunkie]

On Jul 28, 9:20?pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> BlueCumulus wrote:
> > I have nothing against Diana-2
>
> > But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and flying
> > like serial number 2.
> >http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924283141651...
> >http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483655...
> > while Boguminl Beres says
> > that they have to be the same
> > fly the same and look the same
> > because they come out of the same mould.
>
> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
> that the best evidence you have of changes?

Looks just like my Diana 2, #002....
Bill

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

Bogumil Beres BB wrote
4. ................
in practice it is impossible to produce 2 sailplanes different in
significant way one from another.

But the pictures show Diana-2 with the serial numbers 2 and 3
and they do not look the same.
It might as well be that the wing is not in the same position - who knows.

Why do they look different while BB says they cannot?
Bogumil Beres is the only person who can explain that.
Lets wait and see.

That's what I would like to find out.

Chris
__________________________________________________ ________

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
t...
> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
> that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
>
> BlueCumulus wrote:
>> I have nothing against Diana-2
>>
>> But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and
>> flying like serial number 2.
>> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092428314165188562
>> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092426948365588402
>> while Boguminl Beres says
>> that they have to be the same
>> fly the same and look the same
>> because they come out of the same mould.
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
> that the best evidence you have of changes?

It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from trivial thing to
change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There are somewhere
between three and six molds you'd have to change, and I can't imagine
going to the trouble unless it was really important. I don't think the
minor visibility improvement in that direction would justify it.

Moving the wing forward that little bit requires almost as much
tooling change as changing the canopy rail curve. However, the
resulting CG shift might really come in handy. If the empty CG was
coming out further forward than they originally expected (say, if they
were originally too pessimistic about the shell weights of the aft
fuselage and tail parts), moving the wing forward can mean less trim
ballast, lower trim drag, greater cockpit payload, or some combination
of all three.

So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting the other way on
this one.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
>> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
>> that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
> It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from trivial thing to
> change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There are somewhere
> between three and six molds you'd have to change, and I can't imagine
> going to the trouble unless it was really important. I don't think the
> minor visibility improvement in that direction would justify it.

Well, I'm sensitive to that sort of change. My LAK-17A could have used
it, as my head was far enough back in the fuselage that I could barely
see the wing tips without leaning forward. They did apparently change
the canopy on later production ships.

> So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting the other way on
> this one.

Does anyone other than BlueCumulus care? Clearly, if they broke the
design somehow, we should be hearing more noise from the other owners,
assuming there are at least 3...

Marc

[Vaughn Simon]

"BlueCumulus" > wrote in message
...
> Hello Bogumil Beres,
>
> First I like to say, that Hana Zejdova is not writing under the BlueCumulus
> name.

Well whoever you are, you are the second person from this newsgroup to ever
make my killfile. I hope to never fly with you.

Bye
Vaughn

[Airjunkie]

On Jul 28, 10:05?pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> Bogumil Beres BB wrote
> 4. ................
> in practice it is impossible to produce 2 sailplanes different in
> significant way one from another.
>
> But the pictures show Diana-2 with the serial numbers 2 and 3
> and they do not look the same.
> It might as well be that the wing is not in the same position - who knows.
>
> Why do they look different while BB says they cannot?
> Bogumil Beres is the only person who can explain that.
> Lets wait and see.
>
> That's what I would like to find out.
>
> Chris
> __________________________________________________ ________
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> t...
>
>
>
> > Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
> > better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
> > that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
> > BlueCumulus wrote:
> >> I have nothing against Diana-2
>
> >> But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and
> >> flying like serial number 2.
> >>http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924283141651...
> >>http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483655...
> >> while Boguminl Beres says
> >> that they have to be the same
> >> fly the same and look the same
> >> because they come out of the same mould.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The pictures I saw in the links show the prototype and #3. Before I
paid for #002 I knew the wing would be re-located. I have pictures of
my glider and the wing appears to be in the same place as #3. Jerry
Zieba has #001 and it is exactly the same as mine. I have seen his
glider in person. How many of you have actually seen a Diana 2 in
person? I do not have a web site to post the pictures of my glider
on, but would be happy to send them to someone who can. As I stated
in my previous post, being an experienced Diana 2 pilot, and familiar
with the glider and it's systems, in my opinoin, the problems with
#003 are in the adjustment of linkages....
Bill Liscomb

[GK[_1_]]

> As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency.
> Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated
> and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?

...and so are Mr. Johnson and Mr.Carswell that tested Diana 2 for
Soaring Magazine, so is the currently FAI listed best soaring pilot S.
Kawa, so J.Centka (I dont know how many times world champion these two
are). There are Dianas 2 produced after serial number 3, I think Mr.
Johnson tested one...
There is something fishy about the whole situation, drawing
conlusions from black mailing would be foolish....

[nimbusgb]

On 29 Jul, 15:22, Airjunkie > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 10:05?pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bogumil Beres BB wrote
> > 4. ................
> > in practice it is impossible to produce 2 sailplanes different in
> > significant way one from another.
>
> > But the pictures show Diana-2 with the serial numbers 2 and 3
> > and they do not look the same.
> > It might as well be that the wing is not in the same position - who knows.
>
> > Why do they look different while BB says they cannot?
> > Bogumil Beres is the only person who can explain that.
> > Lets wait and see.
>
> > That's what I would like to find out.
>
> > Chris
> > __________________________________________________ ________
>
> > "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> t...
>
> > > Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the back to allow a bit
> > > better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes are used for. Is
> > > that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
> > > BlueCumulus wrote:
> > >> I have nothing against Diana-2
>
> > >> But I would like to find out why serial number 3 is not looking and
> > >> flying like serial number 2.
> > >>http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924283141651...
> > >>http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483655...
> > >> while Boguminl Beres says
> > >> that they have to be the same
> > >> fly the same and look the same
> > >> because they come out of the same mould.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The pictures I saw in the links show the prototype and #3. Before I
> paid for #002 I knew the wing would be re-located. I have pictures of
> my glider and the wing appears to be in the same place as #3. Jerry
> Zieba has #001 and it is exactly the same as mine. I have seen his
> glider in person. How many of you have actually seen a Diana 2 in
> person? I do not have a web site to post the pictures of my glider
> on, but would be happy to send them to someone who can. As I stated
> in my previous post, being an experienced Diana 2 pilot, and familiar
> with the glider and it's systems, in my opinoin, the problems with
> #003 are in the adjustment of linkages....
> Bill Liscomb

open a photobox account for free at www.photobox.co.uk and put a link
to your shared album here

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 06:00 29 July 2007, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the
>>back to allow a bit
>> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes
>>are used for. Is
>> that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
>It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from
>trivial thing to
>change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There
>are somewhere
>between three and six molds you'd have to change, and
>I can't imagine
>going to the trouble unless it was really important.
>I don't think the
>minor visibility improvement in that direction would
>justify it.
>
>Moving the wing forward that little bit requires almost
>as much
>tooling change as changing the canopy rail curve. However,
>the
>resulting CG shift might really come in handy. If the
>empty CG was
>coming out further forward than they originally expected
>(say, if they
>were originally too pessimistic about the shell weights
>of the aft
>fuselage and tail parts), moving the wing forward can
>mean less trim
>ballast, lower trim drag, greater cockpit payload,
>or some combination
>of all three.
>
>So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting
>the other way on
>this one.
>
>Thanks, and best regards to all
>
>Bob K.
>http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24



See:

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483
65588402

This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
(labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
looks to be cut more angularly.

From comparison of the relative port and starboard
rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is
photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint
but not enough to make one grid box difference to the
position of the wing leading edge which is what would
be required to bring the prototype leading edge as
close to the canopy as S/N 3.

If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading
edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian
one would be definitive would they not?

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

John Galloway wrote:
> See:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483
> 65588402
>
> This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
> accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
> of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
> the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
> then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
> moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
> (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
> looks to be cut more angularly.
>
> From comparison of the relative port and starboard
> rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is
> photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint
> but not enough to make one grid box difference to the
> position of the wing leading edge which is what would
> be required to bring the prototype leading edge as
> close to the canopy as S/N 3.

In any case, these photos can't provide a definitive comparison, as the
the upper one is taken with a relatively wide angle lens, the lower with
a telephoto. Note the geometric inconsistencies between openings at the
rear of the canopy and the nose vents.

> If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading
> edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian
> one would be definitive would they not?

That wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun as arguing about the
integrity of the design based on obsessively examining photos...

[Udo]

On Jul 29, 1:07 pm, John Galloway > wrote:
> At 06:00 29 July 2007, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 28, 9:20 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> >> Looks like they deepened the canopy cut out at the
> >>back to allow a bit
> >> better view down. That's the sort of thing prototypes
> >>are used for. Is
> >> that the best evidence you have of changes?
>
> >It kinda looks that way. However, it is a far from
> >trivial thing to
> >change the canopy rail curve that drastically. There
> >are somewhere
> >between three and six molds you'd have to change, and
> >I can't imagine
> >going to the trouble unless it was really important.
> >I don't think the
> >minor visibility improvement in that direction would
> >justify it.
>
> >Moving the wing forward that little bit requires almost
> >as much
> >tooling change as changing the canopy rail curve. However,
> >the
> >resulting CG shift might really come in handy. If the
> >empty CG was
> >coming out further forward than they originally expected
> >(say, if they
> >were originally too pessimistic about the shell weights
> >of the aft
> >fuselage and tail parts), moving the wing forward can
> >mean less trim
> >ballast, lower trim drag, greater cockpit payload,
> >or some combination
> >of all three.
>
> >So, Marc, you could well be right, but I'm betting
> >the other way on
> >this one.
>
> >Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> >Bob K.
> >http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>
> See:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50924269483
> 65588402
>
> This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
> accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
> of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
> the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
> then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
> moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
> (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
> looks to be cut more angularly.
>
> From comparison of the relative port and starboard
> rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is
> photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint
> but not enough to make one grid box difference to the
> position of the wing leading edge which is what would
> be required to bring the prototype leading edge as
> close to the canopy as S/N 3.
>
> If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading
> edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian
> one would be definitive would they not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It appears to me that the images are not scaled identicly,
easely seen on the lettering and the canopy frame.
Udo

[Airjunkie]

> > This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
> > accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
> > of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
> > the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
> > then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
> > moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
> > (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
> > looks to be cut more angularly.

That's not serial #002, THIS is #002.

Here are some shots of serial #002....

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0013.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0010.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0007.jpg

Bill

[Dan G]

Does anyone really give a flying you-know-what?

Whoever the hell builds the Diana clearly has no clue about customer
service, but we knew that already. The glider itself is a triumph of
technology in a dying backwater of gliding nobody cares about
(everybody is buying 18m gliders now).

Blue's posts are doing a fantastic job of promoting the Diana because
really I'd have long forgotten it existed without them... how many
have they built now? Four?

So, does anyone give a...


Dan

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

Thanks Bill Liscomb,
then you must have N562BL.
I later found pictures of your plane and ZJ of Jerzy Zierba and they look
the same
as VH-VHZ. Then the in flight problems must be caused by something else.

The manufacturer knew that Hana Zejdova weighs only 55kg with parachute
and the plane was promised to be delivered with the CG adjusted to this
condition.

Here some pictures of the airbrake problems in Tocumwal Australia:

locked airbrakes at the plane delivery. Manufacturer said to have solved the
problem the same day
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753112477014018

but see these pics after the planes arrival in Australia
locked and unlocked airbrakes, Tocumwal Australia
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753155426687010
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753133951850514

asymmetric engagement of airbrakes, Tocumwal Australia
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753168311588914
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753262800869474

in flight locked airbrakes after landing
fortunately it happened in reach of the airfield
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753202671327314
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092753181196490818

these problems would never have gone public if the manufacturer would have
supported the pilot with information in Australia while they reported the
problems.

Many emails had been written to the manufacturer before Christmas 2006 and
produced no answer. These emails were written before an actions were taken
and before anything was changed on the plane but the Diana factory did not
answer.

We even sent the manufacturer a Russian translation of the problems - no
answer.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#5092503750970775522

Why did this manufacturer not give support for a multiple world record
holder, who
flew several world records with Diana-1? This is not understandable.

What would you think would happen if Karl (KS) would get a new plane to fly
a US
national competition and he reports problems with the plane. But the
manufacturer
does not support him until the comp is over. Do you think that would be
reasonable?
Do you think that would never go public?

I slowly begin to understand an earlier discussion, which still is reported
under
http://www.neshe.com. You cannot just ignore customer care.

At least it is good news to hear that you obviously have no problems with
your Diana-2.

with kind regards

Chris

__________________________________________________ ______________



"Airjunkie" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The pictures I saw in the links show the prototype and #3. Before I
> paid for #002 I knew the wing would be re-located. I have pictures of
> my glider and the wing appears to be in the same place as #3. Jerry
> Zieba has #001 and it is exactly the same as mine. I have seen his
> glider in person. How many of you have actually seen a Diana 2 in
> person? I do not have a web site to post the pictures of my glider
> on, but would be happy to send them to someone who can. As I stated
> in my previous post, being an experienced Diana 2 pilot, and familiar
> with the glider and it's systems, in my opinoin, the problems with
> #003 are in the adjustment of linkages....
> Bill Liscomb
>

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 23:24 29 July 2007, Airjunkie wrote:
>> > This picture has a comparison grid that seems to
>>>be
>> > accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
>> > of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions
>>>are
>> > the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
>> > then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
>> > moved forward compared to what we are told is the
>>>prototype
>> > (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
>> > looks to be cut more angularly.
>
>That's not serial #002, THIS is #002.
>
>Here are some shots of serial #002....
>
>http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0013.jpg
>http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0010.jpg
>http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0007.jpg
>
>Bill
>
Bill,

That is what I was trying to make clear - that the
grid picture is mis-identified as S/N 2 whereas it
is actually the prototype.

No need for measurements now - your glider is clearly
the same as the Australian one

John

[[email protected]]

On Jul 29, 7:30 am, GK > wrote:
> > As I read it, a 5 times world champion has a fair amount of competency.
> > Hana is no slouch either! Australian authorities are strict, dedicated
> > and entirely safety orientated, are they satisfied?
>
> ...and so are Mr. Johnson and Mr.Carswell that tested Diana 2 for
> Soaring Magazine, so is the currently FAI listed best soaring pilot S.
> Kawa, so J.Centka (I dont know how many times world champion these two
> are).

Mr. Centka and Mr. Kawa flew with the prototype but not with VH-VHZ. I
think their comments don't make sense here. Furthermore their comments
could be biased.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Carswell did not fly or see VH-VHZ.

Maybe of interest: Mr. Centka had at least one crash with the
prototype of Diana 2. The fuselage in several pieces. I think it was
in Leszno. Has anybody photos available?

[Jack[_4_]]

The people that might be in the market for a Diana 2 are probably the
only ones that really give a rats patoot, but there may be a few of
those monitoring this board. The manufacturer may have an 18-meter
LS-10 killer version planned. If so, knowing they're not being exactly
stand-up guys might be of some GREAT interest.

That's why people are reading this... I'd personally hate to invest
that kind of money and have the manufacturer snub me.

Jack Womack

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=13
one distributor has vanished from the "Foreign Representatives" list..
Chris

[ASM]

On Jul 31, 4:38 pm, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> http://www.beres.com.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&...
> one distributor has vanished from the "Foreign Representatives" list..
> Chris

Hey you, Blue Cumulus....you are a freak of nature, I can't believe I
share the sky with a piece of !%#$$ like you...just drop it...we are
getting tired of you...what the hell??? do I hear the fifth column
marching????!!!!!

ASM

[Ian]

On 29 Jul, 04:47, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:

> 4. The phase of preparation for production (manufacturing of mould,
> jigs etc) has been accomplished with care and in practice it is impossible
> to produce 2 sailplanes different in significant way one from another.
>
> I wonder why not both sailplanes, the SP-3697 and the VH-VHZ look the same?

Because one is a pre-production prototype and the other is from the
production series?

Ian

[Ian]

On 30 Jul, 01:04, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:

> Here some pictures of the airbrake problems in Tocumwal Australia:
>
> locked airbrakes at the plane delivery. Manufacturer said to have solved the
> problem the same dayhttp://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisinfos/Diana_2/photo#50927531124770...

That shows three people standing round the tailplane.

> but see these pics after the planes arrival in Australia
> locked and unlocked airbrakes, Tocumwal

Had any adjustments at all been made to the airbrake mechanism before
these picture were taken?

Ian

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

considering your level of communication skills
I take it as a compliment
Thanks
Chris

"ASM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Hey you, Blue Cumulus....you are a freak of nature, I can't believe I
> share the sky with a piece of !%#$$ like you...just drop it...we are
> getting tired of you...what the hell??? do I hear the fifth column
> marching????!!!!!
>
> ASM
>

[Jack[_4_]]

On Aug 1, 7:13 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> considering your level of communication skills
> I take it as a compliment
> Thanks
> Chris
>

I thought he got his point across rather well...

Jack

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

your firm has good goals Jacek Kobiesa

Our Mission is to focus on the Customer as the most important asset of our
Company by providing exceptional value, while encouraging leadership and
entrepreneurial spirit among all Employees.
We will accomplish this mission through a Team commitment to:
..Fairness & Honesty
..Quality Workmanship
..Exceptional Service
..Communication

send it to Bogumil Beres
if he follows the advice
everyone will be happy
in future
Chris

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

through patriotic glasses
it is difficult to see facts
Chris

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 1, 7:17 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
> your firm has good goals Jacek Kobiesa

Chris, you're barking up the wrong tree. Jack W. isn't Jacek K.

The PIK-20 may look a little like the Diana in some perspectives, but
they're not the same.

Thanks, Bob K.

[BlueCumulus[_2_]]

The answer was to ASM if you look close
and ASM is Jacek Kobiesa
He has written elsewhere about Diana-2:

IT WILL BE THE BEST GLIDER !!
Good, because from Poland ;)
SHE IS DEVINE and
always will be! ;)
Jacek

if this is not proof that he has patriotig sunglasses on
then I cannot help it.

Diana-2 is a good glider, but the manufactureer needs
a good sales and service department. It is impossible
for one person alone to run a firm, doing everything:
design, documentation, production quality control,
sales, service, customer care, dealing with EASA....
Bogumil should delegate some work also to create
redundency. Imagine he falls sick for some month?
Who will continue the business?
Chris
________________________________________

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 1, 7:17 am, "BlueCumulus" > wrote:
>> your firm has good goals Jacek Kobiesa
>
> Chris, you're barking up the wrong tree. Jack W. isn't Jacek K.
>
> The PIK-20 may look a little like the Diana in some perspectives, but
> they're not the same.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

[[email protected]]

As I know Chris, he is one of the nicest very professional persons in
gliding scene. I truly believe him, if he is making a point. They who
say, he is against polish manufacturer, are redicilous. He would of
done the same, if the plane was what ever. He is just after some
answers. And no, I AM NOT CHRIS. (I am sure some of you already
thought that) So let's cut the crab...

PS










On 30 heinä, 02:20, Airjunkie > wrote:
> > > This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
> > > accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
> > > of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
> > > the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
> > > then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
> > > moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
> > > (labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
> > > looks to be cut more angularly.
>
> That's not serial #002, THIS is #002.
>
> Here are some shots of serial #002....
>
> http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0013.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0010.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb190/soaranator/DSCF0007.jpg
>
> Bill